Language selection

Search

Appendix 3 – Animal Welfare at Slaughter PCI Operational Guidance

On this page

Note: In order to demonstrate compliance with the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR), licence holders may follow the interpretive guidelines and industry guidance. This operational guidance document summarizes the expected performance criteria available in animal welfare at slaughter interpretive guidelines and industry guidance.

When the licence holders do not follow the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) guidance mentioned below and present a different means of meeting SFCR requirements, they are required to present scientific evidence that their preventive measures are effective; the inspectorate may consult with their Area Operational specialists to verify the validity of the approach and request guidance from the Operational Guidance and Expertise (OGE) Subject Matter Experts (SME).

As per SFCR paragraph 89 (1) (d), all licence holders are required to identify and analyze animal welfare risks and demonstrate adequate management of those risks.

Under the SFCR, licence holders who handle (including receive) and slaughter food animals are required to prepare, keep, maintain and implement a written Preventive Control Plan (PCP) for animal welfare.

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to CFIA inspection staff on Preventive Control Inspection (PCI) procedures related to verifying that licence holders meet the regulatory requirements related to animal welfare at slaughter.

Table 1: Recording inspection data in the Digital Service Delivery Platform (DSDP)
Inspection trigger

Choose appropriate selection from the following:

  • Preventive Control Inspection plan
  • Incident response
Business line Food
Program Meat hygiene
Commodity group Leave it blank
Commodity sub-group Leave it blank
Commodity type Leave it blank
Product Leave it blank
Inspection case Preventive Control Inspection plan
Task type Preventive Control Inspections
Inspection task level 1 Compliance Verification of a System
Inspection task level 2

Choose appropriate sub-element from the following:

  • 1.1 (a): Incoming inputs
  • 1.1 (b) (c): Product formulation and specification/processing
  • 4.1: Equipment design and maintenance
  • 5.2: Buildings
  • 5.3: Water, ice and steam
Inspection task details Leave it blank

To ensure accuracy on the risk assessment of establishments done by the Establishment-based Risk Assessment (ERA)-Food model, inspectors need to be mindful when populating key data fields within inspection tasks that are not related to food safety (meaning, animal welfare, economic, trade or environmental). Refer to table 2 below for direction on how to populate key fields.

Table 2: Recording non-compliance in DSDP
Is non-compliance observed Choose "Yes" if non-compliance is observed
Impact assessment Table Notea Choose one of the following:
  • "No Impact": if non-compliance observed related solely to animal welfare portion of the sub-element
  • "Direct" or "Potential": if non-compliance observed related to animal welfare as well as food safety portion of the sub-element
  • "Direct" or "Potential": if non-compliance observed related solely to food safety portion of the sub-element
Rest of the fields Complete using the DSDP data-entry guidance in the Operational guidance (OG) Standard Inspection Process (SIP) and Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system

PCI for sub-element 1.1 (a): Incoming inputs

This section applies to the humane handling (including receiving) of food animals before slaughter:

Legal authorities

SFCR 49, 75, 86 (1), 88, 89 (1) (d) (e), (2) (3), 127, 135 (1) (a), 166 (1) (b) (i) (ii) (2)

Reference documents

Outcome

Refer to the "Outcome" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 1.1 (a): Incoming inputs.

Under the SFCR, the licence holders who handle (including receive) food animals are required to prepare, keep, maintain and implement a written PCP for animal welfare; this one will have to be complete and effective to prevent the risk of avoidable suffering, injury or death to any food animal during these activities.

Rationale

Refer to the "Rationale" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 1.1 (a): Incoming inputs.

An effective PCP for animal welfare will prevent and eliminate the risks of avoidable suffering, injury or death for the food animals during receiving and handling activities at the establishment, both within and outside of the facility, taking into account identified gaps and problematic areas that may be specific or unique to that establishment.

Performance criteria

Refer to the "Performance criteria" in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 1.1 (a): Incoming inputs.

In addition, the following criteria are met:

Verification activities

Refer to the "Verification activities" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 1.1 (a): Incoming inputs.

In addition, the following verifications are done:

Document/record review

Refer to the "Document/record review" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification  system: sub-element 1.1 (a): Incoming inputs.

In addition, the document/records for animal welfare are available, complete, up-to-date, legible and accurate and meet the following:

Documents

Food animals found dead on arrival at the establishment or that died at the establishment

In the case of a food animal that is found dead at the time of its arrival at the establishment or that dies at the establishment; the date and time that the food animal was found dead, its identification number or any other information that identifies it.

Competencies and qualification

Animal handlers have the competencies and qualification to receive and handle food animals in the establishment, including by handling crates containing a food animals, without causing avoidable suffering, injury or death to the food animals.

Monitoring records

Corrective action records

Verification records

Internal audit records

On-site: observation and interviews

Refer to the "On-site: observations and interview" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 1.1 (a): Incoming inputs.

In addition the following are met:

PCI for sub-element 1.1 (b) (c): Product formulation, specifications and processing

This section applies to humane slaughter of food animals:

Legal authorities

SFCR 49, 75, 86 (1), 88,  89 (1) (d) (e), (2) (3), 127, 135 (1) (a), 166 (1) (b) (i) (ii) (2) 

Reference documents

Outcome

Refer to the "Outcome" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 1.1 (b) (c): Product formulation, specifications and processing.

Under the SFCR, the licence holders who slaughter food animals are required to prepare, keep, maintain and implement a written PCP for animal welfare; this one will have to be complete and effective to prevent the risk of avoidable suffering, injury or death to any food animal during these activities.

Rationale

Refer to the "Rationale" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 1.1 (b) (c): Product formulation, specifications and processing.

An effective PCP for animal welfare will prevent and eliminate risks of avoidable suffering, injury or death for the food animals during any of the slaughter activities in the establishment, both within and outside of the facility, taking into account identified gaps and problematic areas that may be specific or unique to that establishment.

Performance criteria

Refer to the "Performance criteria" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 1.1 (b) (c): Product formulation, specifications and processing.

In addition, the following criteria are met:

Verification activities

Refer to the "Verification activities" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 1.1 (b) (c): Product formulation, specifications and processing.

In addition, the following verifications are performed:

Document/record review

Refer to the "Document/record review" section "Processing" in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability inspection – Compliance verification of a system: sub-element 1.1 (b) (c): Product formulation, specifications and processing.

In addition, the document/records for animal welfare are available, complete, up-to-date, legible and accurate and meet the following:

Documents

Food animals humanely killed at the establishment

In the case of a food animal that was humanely killed at the establishment; the date and time that the food animal was humanely killed, its identification number or any other information that identifies it.

Competencies and qualification

Animal handlers meaning any person who is involved in the restraining, stunning and bleeding and in the ritual slaughtering without pre-slaughter stunning have the competencies and qualification to handle food animals at the establishment without causing avoidable suffering, injury or death to the food animals.

Monitoring records

Corrective action records

Verification records

Internal audit records

On-site: observation and interview

Refer to the "On-site: observations and interview" section "Processing" in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability inspection – Compliance verification of a system: sub-element 1.1 (b) (c): Product formulation, specifications and processing.

In addition, the following are met:

PCI sub-element 4.1: Equipment design and maintenance

This section applies to the equipment used during humane receiving, handling and slaughtering of food animals.

Legal authorities

SFCR 49, 53 (a) (c) (e) (f), 55, 86 (1), 88, 89 (1) (d) (2) (3), 127, 128, 135 (1) (b), 135 (2)

Reference documents

Outcome

Refer to the "Outcome" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification  system: sub-element 4.1: Equipment design and maintenance.

Under the SFCR, licence holders who handle (including receive) and slaughter food animals are required to have a complete and effective written PCP for animal welfare in place that is maintained and implemented to prevent the risk of avoidable suffering, injury or death where:

Rationale

Refer to the "Rationale" in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification  system: sub-element 4.1: Equipment design and maintenance.

Considering as well that:

Performance criteria

Refer to the "Performance criteria" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification  system: sub-element 4.1: Equipment design and maintenance.

The licence holder must ensure that all equipment (including conveyances where food animals are slaughtered) used for the pre-slaughter and slaughter activities (including ritual slaughter without pre-slaughter stunning, if applicable) are in accordance with the animal welfare regulatory requirements and guidance documents.

Conveyance or equipment

The term "conveyance or equipment" is not specifically defined in the SFCA nor in the SFCR. In general terms, "conveyance or equipment " when used in Part 4 – Preventive Control (PC) of the SFCR, refers to anything that is used within the establishment to handle (including receive) or slaughter a food animal.

To meet the performance criteria, the licence holder must demonstrate the following:

for all species

for mammalians and ratites excluding rabbits

Equipment for restraining food animals during their handling, their assessment, their ante-mortem examination and their inspection is present.

for all species excluding birds and rabbits in containers

Mobile ramps, gangways and chutes that are used by food animals in the establishment during pre-slaughter activities must provide secure footing and must not present a risk of injury to the food animals during movement.

Verification activities

Refer to the "Verification activities" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 4.1: Equipment design and maintenance.

In addition, the following verifications are done:

Document/records review

Refer to the "Document/record review" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 4.1: Equipment design and maintenance.

On-site: observation and interview

Refer to the "On-site: observations and interview" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 4.1: Equipment design and maintenance.

In addition, the following apply:

PCI for sub-element 5.2: Buildings

Note: buildings include the slaughter establishments which may include their land and surroundings and the facilities where regulated activities are conducted (as stipulated in the licence).

Legal authorities

SFCR 49, 57 (b) (i) (iv) (c) (i) (ii) (d), 58 (1) (3), 63 (1), 64 (a) (d), 65 (1) (2) (d), 86 (1), 88, 89 (1) (d) (2) (3), 127, 128, 134, 135 (1) (b), 135 (2)

Reference documents

Outcome

Refer to the "Outcome" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.2: Buildings.

In addition, buildings used for pre-slaughter and slaughter activities are designed, constructed and maintained to support the activity being conducted and prevent avoidable suffering, injury or death of food animals.

Rationale

Refer to the "Rationale" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.2: Buildings.

Considering as well that:

Performance criteria

Refer to the "Performance criteria" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.2: Buildings.

The licence holder must ensure that the buildings used for pre-slaughter and slaughter activities are designed, constructed, maintained and used to meet regulatory requirements.

To meet the performance criteria, the licence holder must demonstrate the following:

all species

all species except birds and rabbits in containers

Verification activities

Refer to the "Verification activities" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.2: Buildings.

In addition, the following verifications are performed:

Document/records review

Refer to the "Document/record review" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.2: Buildings.

On-site: observation and interview

Refer to the "On-site: observations and interview" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.2: Buildings.

Go outside:

Go inside:

PCI for sub-element 5.3: Water, ice and steam

Legal authorities

SFCR 49, 70 (4), 71 (1) (a), 127, 128, 135 (2)

Reference documents

Outcome

Refer to the "Outcome" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.3: Water, ice and steam.

Water, or any other source of hydration, provided to the food animals is safe and in adequate quantity, temperature, pH and pressure for the species it is intended to.

Rationale

Refer to the "Rationale" section in the Operational guideline –  Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.3: Water, ice and steam.

Considering as well that:

Performance criteria

Refer to the "Performance criteria" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.3: Water, ice and steam.

The licence holder must ensure that water, or any other source of hydration, provided to food animals is in accordance with the regulatory requirements and animal welfare guidance documents.

To meet the performance criteria, the licence holder must demonstrate the following:

Verification activities

Refer to the "Verification activities" section in the Operational guideline –  Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.3: Water, ice and steam.

Document/records review

Refer to the "Document/record review" section in the Operational guideline –  Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.3: Water, ice and steam.

Review the licence holder's written PCs for water provided to food animals to verify compliance to regulatory requirements, including applicable PCP for animal welfare requirements set out in SFCR 89 and performance criteria.

On-site: observation and interview

Refer to the "On-site: observations and interview" section in the Operational guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system: sub-element 5.3: Water, ice and steam.

Verify the following:

Additional information for the inspectors

The PCP for animal welfare of the licence holder must include the measures in place at the slaughter establishment to control the identified animal welfare risks (avoidable suffering, injury and death other than by humane slaughter or killing) for each activity and each type of food animal handled (including received) and slaughtered and must provide evidence of the effectiveness of these measures and the performance criteria used. The licence holder is encouraged to follow the CFIA guidelines to meet the regulatory requirements. If the licence holder choose to adopt a different practice to meet the outcome, the PCP for animal welfare must include the scientific evidences and  supporting documents used which may include:

In general, the PCP for animal welfare must include:

The areas of highest animal welfare risks for suffering include the following activities (in order of consecutive slaughter steps):

The inspector will conduct an animal welfare PCI case either as a "planned case" or as an "as required" case. More specifically, when performing the animal welfare PCI inspection case of a sub-element, the inspector will have to look at the following:

humane receiving and handling of food animals at slaughter (part of sub-elements 1.1 (a), 4.1, 5.2 and 5.3)

Specifications on good animal welfare practices for producers, poultry catchers and transporters; employee competencies, qualification and training at the establishment; assessment, monitoring, handling and care while the animals are in lairage and prior to slaughter and overnight as applicable; management of ambulatory, non-ambulatory, unfit and compromised animals; handling and moving food animals, including food animals in containers at unloading and into the facility; suspension of conscious birds immediately before slaughter, if applicable, water and feed provide to the food animal, as applicable, and emergency contingency planning.

humane slaughter of food animals (part of sub-elements 1.1 (b) (c), 4.1 and 5.2)

Specifications on employee competencies, qualification and training at the establishment; captive bolt equipment; firearms; electrical stunning systems for mammals and avian species; controlled atmosphere stunning systems for pigs and poultry; parameters used for the stunning equipment, monitoring stunning effectiveness and methods used for ensuring all animals are effectively stunned, do not return to sensibility, are well bled and are dead before entering the scalder or dressing procedures begin.

ritual slaughter of food animals without pre-slaughter stunning (part of sub-elements 1.1 (b) (c), 4.1 and 5.2)

Specifications on employee competencies, qualification and training at the establishment including the employee doing the ritual slaughter; animal handling prior to the cut; restraining, cutting technique; assessing sensibility after the cut; knife and equipment maintenance; ensuring unconscious animals are suspended on the slaughter line and that they remain unconscious until death; humane handling of animals that are rejected as not acceptable for ritual slaughter.

Repeat failures (patterns of failure)

Zero tolerance versus "tolerance" levels

During internal audits, the term "zero tolerance" means that the only way each of the criteria listed below can pass is if they have a perfect score.

The zero tolerance criteria are:

Most internal audit tools assign an automatic audit failure for these criteria. Other criteria have a "tolerance", for example, 96% for captive bolt stunning or 98% for electric or gas stunning, in recognition of the fact that humans and equipment do not function perfectly at all times. The more automated a procedure is (electrical or gas stunning versus captive bolt stunning), the more effective it is expected to be.

A less than perfect procedure can be tolerated, but animal suffering must never be tolerated. The equipment itself does not require corrective action unless performance falls below the objective performance criteria, but corrective action is mandatory for each and every animal affected by poor equipment performance. Therefore if performance is within acceptable criteria, the equipment does not require adjustment, but each affected animal requires immediate re-stunning or immediate killing as the case may be. If performance is below acceptable criteria, corrective action must be taken for both equipment and affected animals.

Assigning compliance level

Assess deficiencies identified while completing SIP PCI case and assign a compliance level (compliant or non-compliant) based on the extent, severity and impact of these deficiencies on the integrity of the PCP for animal welfare.

Assign a non-compliant level and issue an inspection report when:

Determining the impact assessment and the severity of consequence(s)

The Impact assessment is a field in the DSDP used to gather inspection task data that is required for the ERA model. It is one of the compliance factors used in the calculation of the establishment risk result. The impact assessment is only completed for the PCI task type and is found in the inspection task record.

Non-compliances associated to food safety will be used by the ERA-Food model in the calculation of the risk assessment result while the animal welfare non-compliances will not. See section 6.2.3 Impact assessment of the Food Preventive Control Inspection of the OG Operational Guideline – Food preventive control and traceability – Compliance verification system. Thereby, animal welfare related non-compliances are not considered by the ERA-Food model in the calculation of the food safety impact assessment/risk associated with an establishment. Thus, inspectors will have to identify the impact of the animal welfare non-compliance on food safety (none, direct or potential) and record it in DSDP. See Table 2.

The Category of non-compliance is a field in the DSDP used to determine the potential consequences of the non-compliance and the likelihood of occurrence. The non-compliance categorization determines the level of response the CFIA needs to take to mitigate risk and restore compliance. The Category of non-compliance field is found in the non-compliance record. The impact assessment is not to be considered during the categorization of the non-compliance. See section 4.7 Categorize the non-compliance of the Standard Inspection Process (SIP). animal welfare is considered as an animal health risk related to conditions of the environment or situations/practices that may cause avoidable injury, suffering or death of animals. If a non-compliance requiring immediate action is identified to the Regulated Party (RP), it must be addressed with an interim or permanent corrective action. If an interim measure is put in place, the inspector may allow up to 10 days for the RP to complete the permanent corrective action. The timeframe is at the discretion of the inspector, based on sound judgement and on a case-by-case basis, but  since animal welfare non-compliance are often categorized as severe, they usually require a very short timeframe for resolution (up to calendar 5 days).

Internal audits

The CFIA must ensure that industry regularly conducts internal audits and reviews records when performing the task related to completing the animal welfare PCI of sub-element 1.1(a) and 1.1 (b) (c) of the SIP. CFIA is not required to perform internal audits, nor to correlate with industry.

Internal audits are tools for industry to evaluate their performance at any given moment in time using performance criteria that are measurable and that can be measured in a consistent manner each time and by different people. An internal audit is not the same thing as monitoring procedures in the PCP for animal welfare, and it does not replace monitoring. It simply gives a snapshot of the slaughter process to gauge performance at that moment in time.

The objective of internal audits is to ensure the Objective performance criteria for humane handling, stunning and slaughter are met for mammalian and avian food animal. Additional criteria may be audited or higher performance standards may be used, but performance standards must not be inferior to those indicated in Objective performance criteria for humane handling, stunning and slaughter. The establishment may also perform internal audits of performance criteria associated with other steps of an activity (for example, pre-stun shocks in poultry) or with other activities done at the establishment (for example, ritual slaughter without pre-slaughter stunning or the assessment and monitoring of food animals before slaughter).

Internal audits should be conducted on all species being slaughtered, not just cattle, pigs, sheep, horses, chickens and turkeys. The criteria are adaptable to all species and all slaughter methods. The licence holder can adapt an audit for a minor species by using criteria for another similar species and a similar slaughter method as described in Objective performance criteria for humane handling, stunning and slaughter. For example, use cattle criteria for bison stunned with firearms, or turkey criteria for geese or ducks stunned with an electrical water bath. Quail internal audits is similar to poultry internal audits and should use the same criteria as poultry. Rabbit internal audits should use the same criteria as poultry for electric stunning but in case of mechanical stunning (captive bolt), should use the same performance standard as for mammalian.

Internal audits can be performed by a trained employee or by an external third-party hired for that purpose. The auditor must not be the same person as the one doing the task that is being audited or the one responsible for taking corrective action (for example, re-stunning animals).

The person conducting an internal audit will not normally step in to initiate corrective action or draw attention to an ineffective stun or other deficiency while the audit is taking place, with the exception of an observed deliberate act of cruelty which always requires immediate intervention. The auditor's role is not that of the monitor or of the employee tasked with responding to any deviation. Instead, the auditor's role is to silently count the number of animals/events without drawing attention to deficiencies in order to avoid influencing the audit outcome.

Internal audit frequency and sample size

Internal audit frequency and sample size is determined by the licence holder and is specified in the PCP for animal welfare. Factors to consider when determining audit frequency and sample size are explained in Guidelines for animal welfare Preventive Control Plans and self-audits for the slaughter of food animals and accompanying footnotes. In very small plants, for example those slaughtering 5 animals per day, a running tally should be kept so that meaningful data can be extrapolated.

The recommended sample size of 100 cattle, pigs, sheep/goats, 500 chickens or 100 turkeys, as per Objective performance criteria for humane handling, stunning and slaughter is not mandatory. The sample size must be discussed with the veterinarian with supervisory authority and should be appropriate to the slaughter volume. Sample size for internal audits does not have to be the same as for monitoring. During monitoring or random checks of slaughter effectiveness, smaller or larger sample sizes may be used depending on the situation or the issue and its extent, and only the particular area of concern needs to be evaluated.

Internal audit techniques

As a CFIA inspector, you do not need to know specific details about what is being evaluated other than the main objective criteria in Objective performance criteria for humane handling, stunning and slaughter. If you have concerns about what additional criteria are being audited , how/where they are evaluated , how individual criteria results are tabulated (pass/fail, or points), and how the overall pass/fail score is determined, consult the PCP for animal welfare to see if includes details that will clarify the concern, or discuss with the licence holder.

The audit procedure should be the same for all internal audits conducted at the establishment for a given species and slaughter method. However the audit procedure may be different in another establishment even if the same species is slaughtered using the same method and this may be because the licence holder wants to focus on particular criteria (for example, slips), or because different auditors perform the audit in the second establishment.

CFIA actions in response to internal audit failures

Do not be overly concerned with internal audit details. Your main concerns should be:

If you have any concerns with regulatory compliance, conduct the appropriate daily commodity task. For the other concerns listed above, conduct a portion or all of the animal welfare PCI of sub-element 1.1 (a) and/or 1.1 (b) (c) to see what the PCP for animal welfare says about internal audit procedures, documentation, rating and follow-up procedures, and discuss any concerns with the licence holder.

Some internal audit performance criteria are regulatory requirements while some are not. Regulatory requirements include effective stunning (SFCR 141), bleed rail insensibility (SFCR 142 and 143), access to water in holding pens (SFCR 71 and 136) and absence of deliberate acts of cruelty (SFCR 128 or 129 (1)). Performance criteria which are not regulatory requirements are slips/falls, vocalization and prod use, but they may be a regulatory requirement if slipping, falling and vocalization are the result of the facilities (floors-SFCR 57 (b) (iv) and 58 (3)), poor handling or equipment causing avoidable suffering or injury (SFCR 135), or if prod use is contrary to the requirements of SFCR 129 (2).

CFIA action during observed internal audits will not depend on the final result of an internal audit but will depend on the actions of establishment employees or of the licence holder when regulations are contravened (for example, when an animal fails to be rendered insensible or returns to sensibility on the bleed rail) with the exception of an observed deliberate act of cruelty which always requires immediate intervention such as compliance and/or enforcement actions.

Date modified: